Righthaven Adds Forum Posters To Copyright Suit

eldavojohn writes "The last time we discussed the Las Vegas Review-Journal and their litigating attorneys at Righthaven LLC, they were suing all the websites that had violated their news copyrights. Well, they've now added seven individual message board posters that they've managed to identify, bringing the number of DMCA-related lawsuits they have launched since March to 203. In one case, LVRJ is upset that a Google Groups user named Jim_Higgins posted a column that cited the columnist but failed to cite the original LVRJ article. But Google Groups is protected from these suits, as the article explains: 'Both the madjacksports and Google sites are somewhat protected from copyright lawsuits because they have posted "DMCA" notices as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These notices, which must be registered with the US Copyright Office, inform copyright holders who to contact if they would like infringing material removed.' The first decision of this cluster of lawsuits was against Righthaven, yet the onslaught continues. Righthaven has publicly dismissed fair use as well."

Comments

Well.

[Black Parrot]

Righthaven has publicly dismissed fair use as well.

I'm sure a judge is really going to care if you publicly dismiss a law you don't like.

Re:Well.

[Eponymous Coward]

dismiss a law you don't like

Calling fair use a law isn't really accurate. Fair use isn't a right. Rather it is a defense against infringement claims.

In fine Slashdot tradition, I haven't RTFA (yet), but Righthaven is likely saying their copyrighted materials weren't used in a way that would qualify as fair use.

Re:Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair use isn't a right. Rather it is a defense against infringement claims.

Copyright maximalists like to make that claim, but the law says in black and white that Fair Use is a limitation on the scope of copyright. That means that if a use is Fair Use, it is by definition not infringing (whether the artificial monopoly holder likes it, or not).

You can quibble over whether a citizen's rights come from Fair Use, or simply from the fact that in the absence of copyright, the citizen would have a natural free speech right to copy and use the material. But it is misleading to assert that a citizen who is (correctly) asserting Fair Use has no rights; that the artificial monopoly recipient has an absolute monopoly; for that simply is not how the law is written, or how the law is supposed to work.

Re:Well.

[eh2o]

Fair use is an aspect of copyright law created by the intersection of two conflicting positive rights: one being the right to make scientific progress and intellectual inquiry, and the other being the right to economic protection of intellectual property.

As for the Righthaven cases, it appears that many (but not all) of the alleged violations are blatant by most criteria (verbatim reproduction of entire articles), however the amount of actual economic damage done is arguably to zero (a lawsuit over a post on soc.retirement? really??). On the other hand, people should be a bit more careful when posting stuff like that on public forums... probably not the brightest idea...

Re:Well.

[sgbett]

As much as I think it's all a bit ridiculous, there's a part of me that wonders why someone would reproduce an *entire* article verbatim (if that is indeed what they have done).

Surely, being the internet (in the colloquial sense ie the http part), they should just link to it and if really necessary only quote relevant excerpts? That just seems like good form to me, stylistically being perhaps the most useful way of using the internet as a means by which to deliver cross linked content.

Not that failing to do so warrants immediate legal action, that just seems like a big hissy fit.

Re:Well.

[TaoPhoenix]

It happens here all the time. A key reason is when there is something about the original article that feels offensive. Paywalls, Olde School attempts at control, and 12 pages for a 2000 word article.

Re:Well.

[Attila Dimedici]

There is a bigger reason to argue that the economic damage is zero than the one you cite. The only money Righthaven makes from the material it holds copyright on is from suing those who infringe its copyright. Righthaven is a separate legal entity owned by one or more media companies. The owners of Righthaven transfer their copyrights to Righthaven in exchange for the perpetual right to use the material. Righthaven then sues anyone else who uses the material. As far as I can tell, Righthaven does not license anyone to make copies of the material other than the originator of that material (to whom they extend that right in exchange for the copyright on the material). The way I understand copyright law to be written in the U.S. this significantly simplifies the "fair use" defense (and from previous articles posted on slashdot apparently the courts see it that way as well).

Re:Well.

[Eponymous Coward]

I don't think anybody is saying a citizen has no rights, just that fair use is actually a defense and not a right.

You may be allowed to use portions of a copyrighted work to comment or report on that work, but it isn't your right. Copyright holders who use DRM to deny access to the work aren't obliged to provide access to allow fair use. If fair use was a right, there would be no problem breaking DRM schemes for fair use purposes and the DMCA would have been overturned years ago. Slowly, the defenders and proponents of fair use are chipping away at the DMCA and I'm hopeful that we will end up with a more balanced law soon.

Nobody is saying the copyright holders have an absolute monopoly. They don't and the law is clear on that. In the case referred to in the summary, an article was reproduced in its entirety. If the defendants had only reproduced excerpts their fair use claims would be stronger. I'm not saying their fair use claim is bogus, but I can understand how Righthaven thinks a line was crossed and they may win the case.

The LVRJ url is right there

[complete loony]

Jim_Higgins posted a column that cited the columnist but failed to cite the original LVRJ article

Huh? The url is right there at the top of his post, it's just been shortened;

JOHN L. SMITH: Somehow, patting down disabled, elderly improves security
http://tinyurl.com/2a5y2ho

go Righthaven

[toQDuj]

I'd say good luck to them. The more they press the issue, the more ammo we have to show that the DMCA is full of shit.

Reposting != column

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google Groups user named Jim_Higgins posted a column that cited the columnist"

The summary makes it sound as if Jim_Higgins provided some additional material, with a few references to the original article.

I checked, and that is not the case. He reposted the entire article with no extra commentary or anything. Where I come from, that's not citing, that's plagiarism.

Blocked the websites

[basotl]

I just blocked the websites of the papers. I wouldn't want to accidentally see their sites in the future.... or their advertising.

GG user vs. USENET

[tonique]

Google Groups user named Jim_Higgins posted a column

Google Groups user

The original message shows that Jim_Higgins doesn't post to USENET (and at least the majority of his posts seem to be to newsgroups) from Google Groups. What are Righthaven going to do next, sue all news server admins?

EXACTLY

[Chaonici]

>...where people have a tremendous entitlement complex when it comes to intellectual property.

You have hit the nail on the head. I'm very tired of reading news articles about subjects related to copyright, and seeing the amount of pure greed that gets self-evidently tossed around in the comments sections. You would think that some people were rigorously trained from birth to think of no one but themselves, and to not consider the consequences of their actions. But nope: "Look Out For Number One" is the old motto. If it brings a short-term benefit to you, then to hell with the long-term economical, social and political ramifications of your actions. It's as if these people believe they're entitled to the world brought to them on a silver platter by everyone else. And, of course, let's not forget about the flimsy rationalizations and justifications used to excuse their entitlement complexes. Some people will go to any lengths to justify their actions, and arguing with them is a huge waste of time; you'll never get past the very core of their thinking, which is "me, me, mine, mine, gimme, gimme." The debate of pirates vs copyright holders is old, tiresome, and was lost long ago, because in the end, it's just theft, pure and simple.

Really. Can we as a society step up and reign in the copyright holders once and for all, before it's too late? Multi-generational copyright lifetimes, anti-circumvention provisions, and million-dollar penalties for small-scale, non-commercial infringement are ultimately much worse for everyone than some kids sharing games on BitTorrent.

Re:go

[TaoPhoenix]

We know the DMCA is a wreck. You as a nice guy are promoting a deep PoliSci position as their main motivation.

Unfortunately, it only takes a team of about 5 people in the right places to swipe the precedent that is being generated here, lock it in tight, and then ride the implications all the way to power & money galore. Then when whoever you are proposing has a change of heart, the power players beat him to it with an apparatus that cannot be undone anymore. Think of the TSA adventures.

Think of it again. Any law firm anywhere in the US can sue any internet poster anywhere in the US. Every single lawsuit will ruin someone's year. And whoever was going to agree that it was all absurd will get buried in a trumped charge and ran out of power to help. Then the rest of the sharks will enjoy a nice dinner.

How can you damage a worthless publication?

[thebian]

If reposting a news story with attribution in a couple obscure blogs can seriously damage that paper, if the Review Journal can so easily be diminished, it's a pathetic operation that ought to be put out of its misery immediately.

I bet they even have pretentions of claiming some special First Amendment rights, but they don't deserve them.

I'd say when they hired a roomful of sleazy lawyers, they were admitting their complete defeat as a newspaper, as a journalistic enterprise.